Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Surowiecki bibliography


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

James Surowiecki bibliography

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NOTDIRECTORY. A bibliography of a major author's books, that's appropriate .A listing for a really famous author of even their lesser work, that's appropriate also. A listing for a fairly routine journalist of all their occasional pieces in the New Yorker is making WP an index, not an Wikipedia. It might previously have been argued that if we do not include material of this sort, it will be difficult for the public to find, and therefore a justifiable extension to our scope. But no Wikidata is available, and is ideal for preserving collecting and displaying this material.

I have sometimes been a little skeptical of  wikidata, both its prior lack of verifiability, and its still-current   tendency to accept  words with only a roughly similar or  overlapping meaning as exact semantic equivalents across dissimilar languages and cultures,   but content of this nature is what it is already best suited for,  DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per NOTDIRECTORY, non-notable (probably promotional) cruft. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't really a bibliography, it's a list of links to articles in The New Yorker in violation of WP:ELLIST. Even without the links, the list topic of "all articles written by a staff writer" is not a notable one.--Pontificalibus 07:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with article on James Surowiecki   - there is no reason why this needs to be distinct from the article on the author. Vorbee (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bibliographies should be for lists of published works complete with ISBN, not a directory of magazine article links. Ajf773 (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete We do not post bibliographies for every article a modestly notable magazine writer produces. We just don't.  He wrote a book. It is on his page.  If some of his articles are individually notable, they can be added with supporting sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographies Sunwin1960 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the examples at that link are Umberto Eco who wrote books. this writer has 1 book and a number of magazine articles. and Richard Nixon, where the page includes the several books he wrote, notable articles, and many of the books and biographies about him.  We don't have such pages for moderately notable authors. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per User:Pontificalibus. Deb (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete several reasons have been presented why we shouldn't have a listing of every newspaper column this person has written for the New Yorker (which is all this "article" is); WP:ELLIST and NOTDIRECTORY primarily. The content is not suitable to merge back to the biography; no opinion on recreating as a redirect.  If Sunwin1960 or others feel that WikiProject Bibliographies disagrees with this assessment, we may need an RFC for the community as a whole to evaluate that policy. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.